If Bible translations were Star Wars characters

Just some humor:

If English Bible translations were Star Wars characters... 😊

* ESV = Yoda. Knowledgeable and wise, comes from a long and venerable heritage (Tyndale-KJV), but often talks backwards and uses archaisms.

* NASB = C3PO. Technically precise, popular with fellow robotic eggheads, but too literal-minded and woodenly awkward. NASB 2020 is C3PO with a smooth talking chip installed.

* LSB = K3PO. A different shade or color of C3PO in a land far, far away, i.e. Southern California, but throws in exotic sounding words (e.g. Yahweh) and obsessively repeats certain words as if it's glitching (e.g. slave).

* NET = R2D2. Said to be the robot's robot (the translator's translation), plugs in and interfaces with the latest tech, but most people don't really use it, per se, they only use it for its technical tools (NET notes).

* CSB/HCSB = Mace Windu. Boldly willing to take risks, even if it breaks with tradition (e.g. John 3:16, Rom 3:25), has a strong fan base within certain factions (SBC), but otherwise less popular than one might think, though it's increasing.

* NIV = Han Solo. Broadly popular, plain spoken and easy to follow, effectively gets the job done without any fancy acrobatics, but sometimes seems to be shady and may be smuggling illicit pronouns.

* NLT = Ewoks. Communicates with simple expressions, not the most technically proficient, but heart is in the right place and once in a while pleasantly surprises everyone.

* KJV = Darth Vader. Once thought to be the chosen one, speaks in an authoritative voice, but took a turn to the dark side when it began lording it over anyone who doesn't fall in line with the one true imperial text, the KJV Only.

* NKJV = Dark Helmet. On the one hand, it's a new and improved Vader. On the other hand, it looks like Vader lite.

* NRSV/NRSVue = Kylo Ren. Let the past die, forward thinking and progressive, but lack of faith is disturbing.

* Biblical Hebrew and Greek = Chewbacca. The most powerful warrior in terms of brute strength, but a bit woolly sounding to most people and as such needs a translator to understand.

A few thoughts on the NASB 2020

I have heard some people deride the NASB 2020, but I think the NASB 2020 is very good:

1. It seems to me the NASB 2020 unfairly received a bad reputation among conservative evangelicals before the completed translation had a chance to hit the market. That's primarily due to rumors about how it would translate adelphoi (as brothers and sisters, not brothers or brethren) and anthropoi (as persons or people, not man). I suppose conservative evangelicals feared it had gone progressive on gender. However, I find the translation of these terms in the NASB 2020 is relatively restrained. More so than the NIV 2011 and much more so than the NRSV let alone the NRSVue. It seems more or less on par with the CSB, which many if not most conservative evangelicals seem to have no problem with and in fact many have embraced it as their primary Bible translation, at least in the SBC (which of course is where the CSB's roots are). The NASB 2020 is still very much the work of conservative evangelicals.
2. In addition, the NASB95 could fairly be said to read woodenly or stilted, but I don't think it would be fair to characterize the NASB 2020 as wooden or stilted anymore. I find the NASB 2020 very readable - clear and natural. Not as readable as the NLT, the NIV, or the CSB, but the NASB 2020 is significantly more readable than previous NASB incarnations as well as more readable than the LSB to my ears. It is also more readable than the ESV, I think, or at worst it's roughly equal to the ESV, inasmuch as it uses more modern and less archaic language than the ESV (e.g. "storm" instead of "tempest"; "plagues" instead of "pestilences"; "warrior" instead of "man of war") and it uses more modern English syntax and less backwards Yoda-speak than the ESV, though there is still some. In general, the NASB 2020 flows quite smoothly for a "literal" (formally equivalent) translation, and it is often a delight to read as well, whereas the NASB95 was a fine literal translation but it did read somewhat more clunky to me. Although in fairness I never thought the NASB95 readability was as bad as many critics have said it was.
3. Others have pointed out that the NASB 2020 is overall more "literal" (formally equivalent) than even the NASB95. Apparently the NASB 2020 is not as literal as the NASB77, or the LSB, but it moves much closer in that direction than the NASB95. Personally, I haven't done an assessment about which NASB/LSB is the most "literal" so I can't say with any degree of confidence (though my guess would be the LSB), but I generally trust competent reviewers and scholars when they evaluate Bible translations.
4. The main thing I don't like about the NASB 2020 is its variety in translating the Hebrew word hesed. The NASB95 and the LSB primarily translate hesed as lovingkindness, the ESV as steadfast love, the CSB as faithful love, the NIV as unfailing love or simply flattened it as love, the NLT as unfailing love, and so on. However, the NASB 2020 translates hesed with a lot more variety - lovingkindness, love, mercy, compassion, faithfulness, etc. Personally I wish the NASB 2020 had primarily stuck with lovingkindness or another term like loyal love. It's not a dealbreaker, I still really like the NASB 2020, but I do wish it had been a bit more consistent in how it translated hesed. Of course, I realize a term like hesed has a wide semantic range, and hence why it shouldn't necessarily always have the same English term. But still my impression is the NASB 2020 errs a little too much on the side of variety than consistency with regard to hesed.
5. I think it would be in Lockman's interests to change the name of the NASB to something else because I think many non-American English speakers kind of balk at the name (e.g. Brits, Aussies, Kiwis). It'd be like if we had a Bible translation called the New Australian Standard Bible or the British Commonwealth Bible. This would make it seem like it's not a Bible translation primarily meant for Americans or only secondarily at best. So even though they might say the NASB is a very good translation, just the name alone might be a bit off-putting to them. Again, I suspect it'd be better if Lockman changed the name to something else like the LSB has done. I think that might help them better appeal to a wider audience.
6. Overall I probably prefer the LSB over the NASB 2020 if push came to shove - and this is considering that I tend to lean toward thinking the translation philosophy of lexical and syntactical correspondence or concordance is a bit misguided in the LSB - but nevertheless they're both very good translations. Indeed we have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to Bible translations in English.

Traduttore, traditore

Someone said:

If you don't know what the original language of a text was written in, then you are 100% dependent on someone telling you what the source language says. Every translation is going to be wrong somewhere. I know this becawh use I used to be an interpreter for the Deaf/Hard of Hearing. It's is not possible to fully convey every word and concept from one language to another.

For what it's worth, if anything, here's my amateurish attempt at an answer:

Hebrews 11:1

Hebrews 11:1:

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (ESV)

"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." (NIV)

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see." (NET)

"Now faith is the certainty of things hoped for, a proof of things not seen." (NASB)

"Now faith is the realization of what is hoped for, the proof of things not seen." (LEB)

"Now faith is the substance of what is hoped for, the evidence of what is not seen." (KJV)

"Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen." (CSB)

"Now faith is the ὑπόστασις/hypostasis of what is hoped for, the ἔλεγχος/elenchos of what is not seen." (Greek/Greek transliteration)

1. I'm no biblical scholar let alone a Hebrews scholar. I'm just a simple layperson sharing what (little) I've learned about Heb 11:1 in a brief personal and devotional "study" I did earlier this morning. So please feel free to correct me.

2. The words I've bolded in Heb 11:1 seem to have been translated in either a subjective or an objective fashion.

a. The subjective seems to emphasize the person who has faith's state of mind. Their psychological state. Their "assurance", "confidence", or "conviction" in what is hoped for and what is unseen.

b. By contrast, the objective seems to emphasize the objective reality of what is hoped for and what is unseen. In this respect, "faith" seizes upon a solid object that can't be seen at the present time but will be seen in the future.

By the way, in context, what is hoped for and what is unseen seem to be about time rather than space, though perhaps it's both. That is, what is hoped for and what is unseen seem to point to the future, to eschatological fulfillment, not to the spiritual realm, per se. Although of course we Christians believe there is an unseen spiritual realm (e.g. 2 Kgs 6:17).

3. Looking at the two Greek words:

a. ὑπόστασις/hypostasis. Cf. Heb 1:3 about Christ's "nature": "He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature [hypostaseos]" (ESV). I presume there are good arguments for the subjective emphasis in translation, but I don't know what they would be. My reason for thinking the objective emphasis is the better translation is the example of "the people of old" "commended" for their faith in Heb 11. They seem to be illustrative examples of faith, of Heb 11:1. It seems to me they thought of faith in an objective reality (at least that's where the emphasis would seem best tilted), not faith in a subjective state of mind which would seem to come close to saying faith in faith. But perhaps a combination of the subjective and objective with a stronger degree of emphasis on the objective would be a reasonable translation? Say something like this: "Now faith is being sure of the reality of what is hoped for...".

b. ἔλεγχος/elenchos. As I understand it, elenchos has reference to demonstrating something is true or someone passes muster after detailed cross-examination. Interestingly, the Socratic method or Socratic debate is also known as "elenctic" debate. The idea seems to be scrutiny or cross-examination of someone or something to see if they or it is true or false, proven or disproven, accurate or inaccurate. So "elenchos" in Heb 11:1 seems to be saying that "what is not seen" has been proven to be true after examination or scrutiny. What may have once been debatable or disputable has emerged demonstrably proven.

c. Perhaps a reasonable translation of Heb 11:1 could be: "Now faith is being sure of the reality of what is hoped for, proof after examination of what is not seen."

4. It's interesting that Heb 11:1 defines faith as the direct opposite of what militant atheists typically think faith is. Militant atheists say faith is blind faith. A leap of faith. A leap into the dark or unknown. Faith without reason or evidence. Faith based primarily or solely on emotions or feelings.

However, Heb 11:1 contradicts these notions of faith. Heb 11:1 teaches that faith is trust in an objective reality. An objective reality that we can't see at present, but nevertheless it is an objective reality based on demonstrably proving its truth in light of intense examination. A subjective feeling or emotion like assurance or conviction comes after the fact and in light of having demonstrated the reality of faith's object.

This is another piece of evidence that Christianity has always been an apologetic faith: we defend our faith, we examine our faith, we prove our faith, etc.

Joe Rogan's biblical illiteracy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fownDeTsw0Y

The style of Bible translation

I want to piggyback off Steve's post "The art of Bible translation":

1. To my knowledge, Bible translators attempt to balance accuracy, clarity, and naturalness in translation. I've sometimes seen other elements, but these seem to be the main ones. However, I don't know where things like style, tone, or voice would slot under. Perhaps naturalness?

2. In any case, I would think the main aim of a translation into its receptor language would be to reflect the fullness of the original as much as possible. For instance, if a text is elegant, then its translation should be elegant too. If a text is vulgar, then its translation should be vulgar too. All things equal, this seems to better reflect the original than (say) slavishly translating word-for-word, then flattening the entire translation into a uniform style.

3. On this note, I think one problem with Bible translators is that they may be fine biblical scholars, but (forgive me) usually they're not very literary or poetic. I'm sure there are exceptions.

4. Of course, the Bible translation committee or team could bring in a stylist(s). However, at least to my knowledge, it seems the stylist is typically brought in after the fact. That is, after the biblical scholars have translated a book of the Bible, it's the stylist's turn to make it sound stylish in the receptor language. Maybe I'm mistaken and it doesn't work like this. However, if it does work like this, then I don't know if that's necessarily the best approach.

5. In addition, not all stylists necessarily have a style that fits every book of the Bible. One person's style may be better suited for some books of the Bible than others. For instance, I imagine Cormac McCarthy's brutal, spare style might be suited to the book of Judges, and even certain parts of Revelation, but his style might be ill-suited for Rev 21. By contrast, C. S. Lewis might be able to do justice to a translation of Rev 21, judging by the sublime passages in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader and Perelandra. (It might be fun to try to match various styles of past or present literary figures with various passages or books of the Bible to see who might be the best stylist for a given biblical text.)

6. If the scholar and stylist can't be the same person, then I would think it might be better to have the scholar and stylist work together on the translation. The one informs the other as both translate the text. Maybe that's already how it works in Bible translation efforts.

7. As I'm sure all good translators know (and far better than I do), translation shouldn't be strictly about translating words, but translation should also be about finding the right tone or voice for the work that's being translated. Moreover, it's about grasping the mood or atmosphere in the original work and evoking it in translation. In other words, unless we're translating something mundane like a shopping list or how-to manual, there's typically something above and beyond the words themselves that likewise needs to be "translated" as well. That strikes me as more difficult to capture well than (say) syntax. One needs an ear attuned to hear the music, as it were, then the skill to render it into song.

8. Consider translations of Dante's Divine Comedy. How best to translate Dante? Free verse, blank verse, terza rima, iambic pentameter? A mixture? Perhaps even (gasp!) prose?

John Ciardi's translation has been called the poet's Dante. Ciardi often sings in a way other translations don't. One sometimes even has a better sense of Dante's voice in Ciardi than in other translations. However, many scholars don't like Ciardi because he takes too much license in translation whereas scholars want to see more fidelity to the original text. Ciardi isn't always accurate to Dante's Italian. As such, scholars might prefer Allen Mandelbaum or Robert & Jean Hollander despite the fact that the latter two come across a bit more stiff or wooden and stilted at times.

In this respect, Ciardi is not unlike Seamus Heaney's beautiful translation of Beowulf which many scholars nevertheless sniff at and deride as "Heaneywulf" since the poet's mark is so distinctly stamped on the translation. Perhaps they would say Heaneywulf threatens to drown out Beowulf. Yet Heaney captures something significant that more formal translations fail to do, even as it lacks other qualities. So there's a tradeoff.

9. Thankfully, as Steve points out in his post, we don't have to choose between Bible translations. The English language has been blessed with scores of translations. What's more, people who can read other languages might do well to consult Bible translations in other languages (e.g. Spanish, Italian, French, Chinese).

With this in mind, I think there are at least four different types of translations: interlinear, formal, functional, and paraphrase. It might do well to have a different English translation in each of these categories, depending on one's goals (e.g. Bible study, devotional reading, public reading).

The art of Bible translation

https://academic.oup.com/jts/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jts/flaa022/5781875?guestAccessKey=e588044b-38a8-4dc0-b335-7737baab40f7

1. I'm ambivalent about this. I suppose that's inevitable since translations involve necessary, unavoidable compromises. Sometimes the inability to capture the original in the receptor language. Sometimes a tradeoff. A choice where you'd like to do two things at once, but you can't.

2. In general, I dislike the modern practice of substituting bland abstract synonyms for concrete metaphors.

But there may be exceptions to that if the original metaphor has incongruous connotations in the receptor language. For instance, Bill Mounce says divine "long-suffering" in Hebrew is literally God has a "long nose". It would be a mistake to carry that over into English because it generates an unintentionally comical and irreverent impression.

3. That said, I remain unconvinced that the job of a translator is to preserve as much as possible the original syntax. It seems to me that the basic job of an English translator is to render the Greek and Hebrew into idiomatic English. Not just because that's stylistically superior, but as a rule, is a more accurate way to convey the original meaning.

4. However, there's a lot to be said for preserving as much of the original "flavor" as possible. For instance, it would be subversive to translate the rugged Old English of Beowulf into the courtly, elegant English of Alexander Pope. 

5. Finally, we don't have to choose. You can have a default translation like the ESV or early version of the NIV, but supplement that with other versions.

Even if you have a working knowledge of NT Greek or OT Hebrew, reading competent translations will aid your understanding of the original, since these are produced by scholars who specialize in Greek and Hebrew and struggle to grasp and capture the nuances of the original. 

Blessed or happy in Psalm 1

Bruce Waltke on translating the first word of Psalm 1 as "happy" or "blessed":

So the word "blessed" - what does that mean? Many moderns translate it "happy". I think that's inadequate. I don't think we have a word for it.

But I point out in Hebrew that there are two different words for "bless"...So you have barak which means "to bless", and then you have this word ashrei.

The word barak means "to be filled with the potency for life". It's the ability to reproduce. So that when God blessed the creation, it was to be fruitful and multiply. Now when you carry that over to the NT, Jesus blessed the disciples. He himself never married. He's not saying to them be fruitful and multiply physically, but be fruitful and multiply spiritually. It's a different form of the kingdom. So that's the word "to bless", barak.

Now the other "to bless" is ashrei. The word used here [in Psalm 1:1]. And that word ashrei means that you have a blessed destiny. It usually refers to the future. And that future, that blessed future, is based upon your present relationship with God. The blessed person when you use ashrei may be in deep trouble at the time...This is a quote from Eliphaz in the book of Job. This would be the Greek equivalent of ashrei - makarios. He says "Blessed is the one whom God corrects". We don't think a person who is being disciplined is particularly blessed, but that's a blessed person. "Blessed is the one whom God corrects, so do not despise the discipline of the Almighty, for he wounds, but he also binds up; he injures, but his hands also heal" [Job 5:17-18]. You have a blessed future. So be thankful that you're a blessed person because God is disciplining you to give you the celestial city. You see how that's different from the word "fill you with potency with life and victory"? It's a different word.

Or another illustration is from the Greek of the Beatitudes of Jesus. Who are the blessed? It's not the way we normally think of it. "Blessed - makarioi, plural - are those who mourn, for they will be comforted...Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you...Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven..." (Mt 5:4, 10-12). So the blessed person is a person who has this great reward in the future. That is not translated by "happy". It's totally inadequate for that. I agree the average person doesn't understand it always, but I think it carries more than just being happy.

You Christians changed the Bible!

https://glanier.wordpress.com/2014/09/13/a-clash-of-monotheisms-you-christians-changed-the-bible/

The goal of Bible translation

There's a lot of unnecessary controversy, confusion, and complication about Bible translation philosophy. So let's clear that up once and for all: the goal of faithful Bible translation is to translate the Greek and Hebrew text back into the original King James Version! 

The Bible in translation

There's an ongoing debate on the right philosophy of Bible translation. In principle, this is a big deal. Here's one side of the debate from Leland Ryken:

The goal of Bible translation is to take readers as close as possible to the actual words that the biblical authors wrote.  The translation process that this viewpoint produces is called verbal equivalence, which means that every word in the original Hebrew or Greek text is rendered by an equivalent or corresponding English word or phrase.  The goal of Bible translation is: be transparent to the original text—to see as clearly as possible what the biblical authors actually wrote.

Dynamic equivalent translators feel no obligation to find an English equivalent for every word in the original Hebrew and Greek texts; if the text says “he anoints my head with oil,” a dynamic equivalent translation might read “he treats me as an honored guest.”  Paraphrases often bear little resemblance to what the biblical authors wrote (for example, the statement in Psalm 19 that God’s law is “sweeter than honey” becomes “you’ll like it better than strawberries in spring” (The Message).

Essentially literal translators assume that a biblical author meant what he said, so if they give an English equivalent of the words of the original author, they have also stated the author’s meaning.  Dynamic equivalent translators operate on the premise that meaning exists independent of the words of the original author. 

They are well documented in both the practice of dynamic equivalent translators and in their statements of philosophy.  Here are the liberties that dynamic equivalent translators regularly take:

(1) replace what the original authors wrote with something else (e.g., where the text says “establish the work of our hands,” dynamic equivalent translations substitute “let all go well for us”);

(2) change figurative statements into direct statements (again a substitution);

(3) add interpretive commentary to what the biblical authors wrote, so readers do not know what was in the original and what was added;

(4) make the style of the English Bible contemporary and colloquial;

(5) reduce the vocabulary level of the original text;

(6) bring masculine gender references into line with modern feminist preferences.  In all these ways, dynamic equivalent translations give the public a substitute Bible.  I would also assert that the original authors of the Bible had the resources to state their content the way dynamic equivalent translators state it, but instead, they stated it as we find in the original texts of the Bible.  Dynamic equivalent translators take a condescending view of the authors of the Bible, treating them like inept writers who couldn’t state things accurately and therefore need correction.

Dynamic equivalent translations regularly make preemptive interpretive strikes, thereby removing the reader’s ability to know what the original authors wrote and what the interpretive options are.  Additionally, the more literary a text is, the more likely it is to embody multiple meanings in a given detail in the text.  Dynamic equivalent translators regularly reduce the multiple meanings to one by the way they translate a passage.  Dynamic equivalent translations are one-dimensional in places where the original is multi-dimensional. 

Sometimes this commentary takes the form of a substitution (for example, “my feet had nearly slipped” is translated as “my faith was almost gone”).

I will just add in passing that dynamic equivalent translators have a uniformly low view of poetry and figurative language.

https://christianpublishinghouse.co/2016/10/10/leland-ryken-interview-with-cph-differences-in-bible-translations/

Christian infographics

https://www.wesleyhuff.com/infographics

Translating the Bible

There are different Bible translation philosophies. These go by different labels. For instance:

Major Bible translations typically reflect one of three general philosophies: formal equivalence, functional equivalence, and optimal equivalence. Formal equivalence is called a word-for-word translation and attempts to translate the Bible as literally as possible, keeping the sentence structure and idioms intact if possible. The NASB and KJV are representatives of this camp. Functional equivalence is typically referred to as a thought-for-thought translation. This is an attempt to translate the text so it has the same effect on the current reader as it had on the ancient reader. The NLT exemplifies this theory. Optimal equivalence falls between the former approaches by balancing the tension between accuracy and ease of reading. While striving for precision in translation, it also seeks clarity to the modern day reader. The ESV leans toward the formal equivalent translation philosophy. The NIV tries to balance these approaches and may lean toward a functional equivalence theory. The HCSB is an optimal equivalence translation.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/translation-philosophy-three-views/

Here's an approach I haven't seen discussed (which doesn't mean it hasn't been discussed). Suppose I'm translating the Bible into English. (I'm using English as an illustration because that's my mother tongue, but the approach I'm suggesting is applicable to receptor languages in general.) I'd ask myself, if Ezekiel, Jeremiah, St. Paul, or a Psalmist was a native English speaker, how would he express himself in idiomatic English? If he wasn't speaking or writing in Greek or Hebrew, if English was the original language, how would he speak or write in English? Instead of treating Greek or Hebrew as the original, and rendering that into a receptor language, suppose we imaginatively put Bible writers in a time machine and transport them to our own time and place. What words would they use? Rather than viewing the process in terms of translation from one language to another, we might switch that around by viewing the process as if the Bible writer was, in fact, speaking in our own language. If, say, he was a 20C American. Put yourself in that mindset. 

Now, what I just said is deceptively simple. There are complications to that hypothetical. There are different periods in English usage, so the answer would vary depending on whether we recast the Bible writer as a 17C English speaker, or 18C, 19C, 20C, 21C English speaker. Likewise, if even I confine myself to American examples, there's literary English, working-class English, Black English, Southern English, colloquial English, and so on. So the choice of English might depend on the target reader instead of a generic English translation.

If I was translating Ecclesiastes, the Psalter, or poetic sections in Isaiah, I'd use literary English. At the opposite extreme, if I was translating Ezk 18 & 23, I'd use street English or slang. Because that's how Ezekiel would talk if he was speaking English.  

Keep in mind that Bible translations never replace the original. We always have the Greek and Hebrew text to refer back to, as the theological benchmark. 

Bible translation philosophies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZJysYu47CM

The grammar of God

Is God a "he"? The phenomenon of divine masculinity runs much deeper in Scripture than pronouns. In Scripture, God assumes stereotypically manly roles. Defensive roles. Punitive roles. God as protector and provider (e.g. father, shepherd, deliverer, warrior king) as well as avenger (judge). These are social roles which in the ancient world are naturally and necessarily associated with overwhelming might. The physical power to subjugate adversaries. In addition, there's the procreative metaphor, which trades on the fact that the woman's role is more "receptive" in relation to the male contribution. 

Of course, mothers have a protective instinct regarding their kids. But women lack the natural equipment of a she-bear. The force to back it up came from male aggression, musculature, and weaponry. 

Moreover, these aren't primarily literary representations of God, although some of them are theological metaphors. Rather, these are ways in which God actually operates in human history.  

So divine masculinity in Scripture isn't primarily grammatical or rhetorical, but grounded in God's economic roles. The grammar and imagery are a reflection of that deeper reality. 

This does raise the issue of the extent to which God's economic roles mirror his essential nature. That's more a question for philosophical theology. 

But if we think the Bible accurately represents divine action in the world, then that's sufficient reason to retain predominantly masculine language, imagery, and metaphor in theological discourse and liturgy as normative usage. 

If you don't think that's the case, that's not a reason to substitute feminine or unisex alternatives. Rather, that's a reason to become an atheist. 

God and gender

"Progressive Christians" object to using masculine pronouns for God. They resort to awkward neologisms like "Godself". The justification is that God isn't male. God is a discarnate spirit. 

Ironically, this debate has been overtaken by transgenderism. "Progressive Christians" champion the cause of transgenderism, yet that detaches gender from biology, so if they wish to be consistent, they must reverse their position on masculine pronouns for God.

But bracketing their intellectual schizophrenia, what about the original argument? Things that are biologically sexless can still be gendered. Take a Jane Austen novel (or Virginia Wolf novel, or short stories by Eudora Welty). The novel is not a female body. It doesn't have female chromosomes, hormones, or sexual anatomy. A Jane Austen novel is an inanimate object. 

And yet a Jane Austen novel is unmistakably feminine. Her novels are exemplifications of a feminine outlook. They reflect a feminine viewpoint.

The converse is true with respect to the Iliad or The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Even if these writings were anonymous, and we knew nothing about the authors over and above the writing itself, we can tell that a Jane Austen novel is written by a woman while the Iliad or The Adventures of Tom Sawyer is written by a man. In works like these, the reader sees the world through the eyes of a man or woman, even though the book itself has no biological sex. 

So gender is more abstract than sexual biology. Sexual biology and psychology are concrete exemplifications of those abstract properties. 

Assessing Bible translations:

Wesley Huff:

Hart failure

https://www.christiancentury.org/review/books/new-testament-strange-words-david-bentley-hart

Rome was against Bible reading before they were for it

Richard Phillips at Reformation 21 has provided a helpful survey of all the times when “Bible reading in the vernacular” was condemned, prior to it being accepted at Vatican II:

Rome's suppression of Scripture. To say the least, it is extensive! Consider the following:

• Pope Gregory VII: forbade access of common people to the Bible in 1079, since it would "be so misunderstood by people of limited intelligence as to lead them into error."
• Pope Innocent III: compared Bible teaching in church to casting "pearls before swine" (1199).
• The Council of Toulouse (France, 1229): suppressed the Albigensians and forbade the laity to read vernacular translations of the Bible.
• The Second Council of Tarragon (Spain, 1234) declared, "No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over. . . that they may be burned."
• In response to the labors of John Wyclif, the English Parliament (under Roman Catholic influence) banned the translation of Scripture into English, unless approved by the church (1408).
• The Council of Constance (Germany/ Bohemia, 1415) condemned John Hus and the writings of Wyclif because of their doctrine of Scripture and subsequent teachings. Hus answerd: "If anyone can instruct me by the sacred Scriptures. . . , I am willing to follow him." He was burned at the stake.
• Archbishop Berthold of Mainz threatened to excommunicate anyone who translated the Bible (1486).
• Pope Pius IV expressed the conviction that Bible reading did the common people more harm than good (1564).

It is true that in many cases, the papacy suppressed Scripture because it was being used to teach against the church. But this is exactly the point the Reformers argued: Rome would not allow the Scripture to speak with authority and for that reason suppressed it. Wyclif wrote: "where the Bible and the Church do not agree, we must obey the Bible, and, where conscience and human authority are in conflict, we must follow conscience." For this doctrine and its further implications, his body was exhumed and burned, his ashes scattered in a nearby river, and his Bible translation banned. So much for the Protestant "canard" regarding the Roman Catholic attitude to Bible translation, teaching, and distribution!

Hart failure

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2017/10/23/4754124.htm